[syndicate] Cartier-Bresson

[Aliette Guibert]

You are right to choose and to claim what you like yourself, and also for my
part as for quite other..

There where you give to confusion, frédéric, it is that your taste is given
always not as a proposition but as a sentence against the taste or the
difference of somebody else.

It thus questions always some power or a dogma even in a fantasmatic object
it provocates answers or submission, a killing way calling its killing
answer or silence.

Is it really a party of flipper ? who is the player, who is the ball ? and
the subscribers would be the obstacles of the runway in this sort of
steeplechase ? or would they be only the public?

You miss a time on me and Mapplethorpe, frédéric, the near the same as
Bazooka's group a long time ago here : I know surely that I don't cognize
anything and I do not bluff on, or telling of it as hypothesis not as truth
; but what I do cognize I tell it as well. I shall not tell of my own life
to tell how.

You never stop to talk by the truth, it is really a strange certitude after
a long time following the death of Einstein and Eisenberg :)

Or you bet at the extreme? You are not more -but not less- as a gambler; if
yes, I miss your fairplay :-(

A.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <fmadre at free.fr>
To: <syndicate at anart.no>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [syndicate] Cartier-Bresson


Selon Aliette Guibert <guibertc at criticalsecret.com>:
> You always speak in the name of the criteria checking of the quality and
of
> the beautiful, but from which references?

er, no, I never use the words "beautiful" or "quality"!

 or exclusive yours own as all
> others... or telling of a model? inwhich you would be completely
> retro-critical and reactionary?

hey, I don't like cartier bresson and I explained why
if you like him just explain why you do instead of picking on people
ok ?

> If there is not anymore a materialist system in matter of the equivalence
of
> the value, it costs even in art (and testify of the disappearance of the
> aesthetics except critical track of past).

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>
> Since the deconstructive punks of the years 69 and 70,

there were no punks in 69 or 70
and punks were not deconstructivists either

> My favourite in photo as art of studio is Rob Mapplethorpe (lié à la
> première époque des punks); for another part Duane Michals.
>
> Et toujours, Dolorès Marat.

euh ouais
and why ?

f.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>
> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> information and archive: http://anart.no/~syndicate
> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> Shake the KKnut: http://anart.no/~syndicate/KKnut
> no commercial use of the texts without permission